House Passes New Russia Sanctions, Pumps Adrenaline Into Cold War 2.0

Late Tuesday afternoon the US House of Representatives overwhelmingly
passed HR 3364, the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through
Sanctions Act.” The vote was 419-3, with the only nays coming from Republicans
Justin Amash (R-MI), John Duncan (R-TN), and Thomas Massie (R-KY).

The bill adds additional sanctions on Russia as punishment for
the as-yet-unproven claims that Moscow somehow interfered in US elections to
help secure a victory for Donald Trump. It also seeks to punish Russia for its
supposed involvement in Ukraine – ignoring that unrest in Ukraine stems from
the US-initiated coup against the democratically elected government of Viktor
Yanukovich in 2014.

The legislation ties the president’s hands in an unprecedented
way, as should Trump decide within his Constitutional authority as Executive
to pursue a foreign policy requiring the canceling of sanctions he is not free
to do so. He must write to Congress asking permission to end the sanctions and
give convincing reason why Congress should agree. Congress then has 30 days
to consider the President’s request during which time he is forbidden from taking
any action on the matter.

It President Trump does not veto this bill, it will signify that
he has essentially given up on his presidency. At least when it comes to foreign
policy. Will the bill for such a surrender come due should he decide to seek
a second term?

One little-noted part of the typically difficult to digest piece
of legislation is a section (231) that imposes sanctions on “persons” who are
“engaging in transactions with the intelligence or defense sectors of the Government
of the Russian Federation.”

What does this mean? It is unclear but suspicious. In Section 221
of Part 2 of Subtitle A of Title 2 where terms are defined for the Russian sanctions
part of the legislation there are entries defining “person” and “United States
person.” For the purposes of the bill: “PERSON. – The term ‘person’ means
an individual or entity.” A “United States Person” is:

(A) a United States citizen or an alien law fully admitted for permanent
residence to the United States; or
(B) an entity organized under the laws of the United States or of any jurisdiction
within the United States, including a foreign branch of such an entity.

The bill does not make clear whether one can be both a “person”
and a “United States person” at the same time. Indeed there does not appear
to be any exclusivity suggesting that a “United States person” is not also a
“person” for the purpose of this section of the bill.

Why is this interesting? Director of Central Intelligence Mike
Pompeo in an April speech
to the Center for Strategic and International Studies condemned Russian state-funded
television station RT as “Russia’s primary propaganda outlet.” In May,
Pompeo said that RT attempts to “muddle” Russian intelligence’s involvement
in Wikileaks. In January the Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian involvement
in US elections intensively focused on the actions of RT.

It is clear that Pompeo and other hawks in the Trump Administration,
along with Beltway neocons, have long endeavored to tie RT to Russian intelligence.
Might this bill not open the door for sanctions against “persons” including
possibly US citizens who are employed by – or even appear on – RT?

The bill requires the President to:

…impose 5 or more of the sanctions described in section 235 with respect
to a person the President determines knowingly, on or after such date of enactment,
engages in a significant transaction with a person that is part of, or operates
for or on behalf of, the defense or intelligence sectors of the Government of
the Russian Federation, including the Main Intelligence Agency of the General
Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation or the Federal Security
Service of the Russian Federation.

The sanctions include prohibition of “persons” so determined from engaging
in financial transactions with “United States financial institutions” under
certain circumstances.

So do we see the beginning of a crackdown on RT buried in the obscure
language of this legislation?

The legislation is clearly interested in information warfare. In fact
it appropriates a quarter of a billion dollars for something called a “Countering
Russian Influence Fund,” which will among other meddling serve to prop up foreign
media outlets whose editorial line is in sync with US foreign policy. In short,
the US taxpayer will subsidize “fake news” produced on foreign soil and then
likely broadcast directly or indirectly back to the US to further propagandize
the people who pay the bills.

It will also fund “non-governmental” organizations in targeted countries
who act in the service of US foreign policy goals. It is the weaponization of
the non-profit sector, courtesy of the US taxpayer.

The government of Russia has been much-criticized over legislation to
force transparency on foreign-funded political organizations operating on Russian
soil, but of course United States law is far more restrictive when it comes
to foreign funds seeking to influence the electoral process (unless you happen
to operate something called “The Clinton Foundation”).

This massive appropriation of our tax dollars will no doubt enrich Russia-targeting
organizations in places like Poland and the Baltics. Look for more “experts”
warning of Russian “aggression” every time a NATO exercise takes place within
feet of Russia’s borders.

In all, this bill represents the massive failure of the US Congress and
entire foreign policy establishment to come up with a coherent idea of the US
place in a post-post Cold War world, where various US wars of choice (and deception)
have cost thousands of American lives, millions of foreign lives, and trillions
of dollars. A new Cold War, which this legislation injects with a shot of adrenaline,
only serves to further underscore the absolute intellectual bankruptcy at the
heart of Washington’s “expert” foreign policy elite.

The ultimate irony, however, is that like most of what Congress does,
the bill is largely irrelevant. The idea that Europe is going to shoot itself
in the foot again by going along with another cockamamie Washington sanctions
scheme is getting harder to believe. The break may not come immediately, but
Europe is clearly
losing its patience with Washington’s brain-dead neocons. The sooner the
better.

Even Barbara Lee and Raúl Grijalva. On the explanatory side I don’t think democrats see economic regulation and prohibition as warlike activities.

Isefree

You’re being too kind. Madeleine Albright thought the death of half million Iraqi children, a result of UN, aka US, economic sanctions in the’90’s, was “worth it”.

jfrchitect

Of course all the Dems voted for it. The Dems originated the ‘Rooskies hacked the election’ myth as a red herring to detract and divert attention from the CONTENT of Podesta’s emails which portray the criminal cabal of witches, Hillar and Waserman-Schultz and Podesta in their successful effort to cut Sander’s campaign off at the knees.

After having pretty much milked the ‘War on Terror’ cow dry, the MIC glomed onto ‘Rooskies hacked the election’ as a means to create a new, albeit, recycled enemy to justify bigger budgets. After all, the F 35 is a pretty expensive tool to use to liquidate some towel-head riding in the bed of a beat up pickup truck with a rusty AK 47.